Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms/Interview


 * Does Wikipedia Pay? is a Signpost series seeking to illuminate paid editing, paid advocacy, for-profit Wikipedia consultants, editing public relations professionals, conflict of interest guidelines in practice, and the Wikipedians who work on these issues... by speaking openly with the people involved.


 * William Beutler (WWB), author of the blog “The Wikipedian”, is a long-time editor and community-watcher. He is also a paid editor (WWB Too).  Well--not anymore--because he gave up direct editing of articles in 2011.  Instead, for the past 3 years he has followed Jimmy Wales’ Bright Line rule in acting as a researcher and consultant for companies and clients that want to suggest changes to Wikipedia articles and engage on the Talk page.  Beutler’s company, Beutler Ink, has worked with clients such as C-SPAN, Cracker Barrel, and Verizon.  Straddling being both a Wikipedian and a paid consultant gave Bill perspective on the challenges paid editing and the advocacy associated with it poses to our community, as well as how the PR, Marketing, and Communications industries view the issue and their role in it.  Motivated by a desire to broker a better relationship between the two worlds, Beutler set up a meeting in D.C. in February for industry representatives to hash out a Statement that could lead to a more constructive, less fraught relationship (see Signpost coverage of the meeting).


 * Full disclosure: I attended the meeting--as an individual representing only myself--and as someone who has hoped to improve our guidance around paid editing, I offered my personal suggestions about what would need to happen in order for their to be a positive change.


 * I interviewed Bill to hear how this all came about, and whether the community should view the Statement as a sign of good faith or, well, just more spin. --User:Ocaasi

As this is the PR industry why should Wikipedia editors expect that this Statement is anything but PR?

Fair question. I think the answer will be in what happens afterward. This statement has always been intended as preamble to additional efforts by participating agencies and, we hope, a new or renewed conversation with the Wikipedia community. If this is the last time you ever hear about this, then I would grant the point. But I'm confident that will not be the case.

Wordsmithing aside, what do you think the Statement is trying to accomplish?

It's always been a great source of frustration for me, on both a personal and a professional level, that every time Wikipedia and public relations are in the news together, it's for all the wrong reasons. It seems like once a year or so, there is another news story about a PR or marketing agency breaking Wikipedia's rules. And the consequence is that constructive contributions by communications professionals are overshadowed and marginalized.

To this day, when I tell someone about our Wikipedia services, I often have to note that we follow Wikipedia's rules in the first sentence, lest they think otherwise. That's why I decided to convene the Donovan House group and why I believed a public statement by the top communications agencies was a valuable project. I want more people to realize that there can be cooperation between honest agency representatives and self-respecting Wikipedians.

'''In this role of meeting organizer, did you see yourself acting as a Wikipedian, or a Communications professional, or some hybrid of the two? I guess I’ll ask it cynically: whose side were you on?'''

I am definitely the hybrid model. I got started editing Wikipedia the same year I moved from journalism to a social media marketing agency, so I learned both at the same time. I certainly identify as a Wikipedian, while I don't necessarily think of myself as a PR professional. That said, I would not contest that the Wikipedia service my firm offers is classifiable as public relations. For what it's worth, Beutler Ink is a content marketing firm, so encyclopedia entries is one kind of content we work in (visual presentatons and data viz are others).

To answer your last question, I don't think it is impossible to be both at the same time, although if a client asks to do something that Wikipedia rules prohibit, we will not help them do that. And we are very clear when new clients approach us: we're going to do it the right way, or we're not going to do it at all.

'''Why was it necessary to have an invitation-only, closed door meeting? Isn’t that against the spirit of transparency?'''

There is a time and place for different kinds of conversations, and it was always our intention that participants could discuss the content of the meeting afterward. Prior to the meeting we communicated to all joining that it would be conducted under the Chatham House Rule, which says the topics discussed may be communicated outside the group, only that particular views may not be attributed to specific individuals. The idea is to find a balance between open and closed, so participants are willing to be honest and not fear they will later have to answer for an unpopular opinion. After all, minds can change, and a free exchange of ideas is necessary to work through controversial topics such as paid COI on Wikipedia.

And talk about it afterward we have: just a few weeks ago, myself and two other participants at the Donovan House meeting held a panel discussion at WikiConference USA where we described the topics we talked about that day, and gave a brief preview of this statement. In August at Wikimania we will be doing the same; the accepted submission can be seen here.

Were the 4 Wikipedians present at the meeting in some way “representing Wikipedia”?

The Wikipedians who joined, and those I invited but were unable to attend, were only asked to come as individual members of the community representing only their views. However, I specifically sought out individuals with a longstanding commitment to the community and who would have credibility on the topic. For those who don't know, those individuals are Andrew Lih (User:Fuzheado), James Hare (User:Harej), myself of course, and you as well, as you mentioned above. For what it's worth I did make an attempt to invite someone from the Wikimedia Foundation, but they were unable to attend, mostly for reasons of geography. If they had attended, however, they too would have done so on an individual basis, not representing the views of WMF.

'''I think many would say the 4 Wikipedians at the meeting hold a “moderate” or “middle ground” approach to how to handle conflict of interest. Did you attempt to bring some of the more vocal Wikipedia critics of paid advocacy to the meeting?'''

Yes, indeed. I reached out to perhaps about twice as many individuals as actually attended, both on the agency side and the Wikipedia side. In the end we had twelve participants, which I was very happy about. I don't want to name anyone specifically who declined or was unable to join because I don't want to imply anything about why they might not have participated, but I did try to bring in at least one editor from WikiProject Integrity (which is dedicated to being an on-wiki PR watchdog) and another consultant who holds differing views from myself on the Bright Line. Meantime, I did not fully know the views on this topic of all Wikipedians whom I invited, or who attended, until the meeting itself.

Do you think the Statement goes far enough in acknowledging the harmful acts and bad actors that the PR industry has contained or concealed (Bell Pottinger, Wiki-PR)?

This was probably the biggest challenge we faced in agreeing upon specific wording, and a good illustration of the balancing act this kind of "interfaith" project requires. The view was expressed by some on the agency side that they were wary of being seen as "apologizing" for the actions of other companies, whom they may or may not consider to be industry colleagues. That seems reasonable. On the other hand, there was a view from the Wikipedia side that context needed to be established, otherwise the statement would seem to be avoiding the obvious. I agreed with this, too.

Besides that, I'd have to add that Wikipedia's unclear rules have contributed to the problem, and many company articles are far worse than they should be, so it's not simply that PR needs to shape up. If there is to be a long-term change in this situation, Wikipedians will have to reconsider some aspects of their own community culture as well, so in the final wording we note that it has been a "challenging" relationship. I hope people on both sides will understand that compromise, and I will also understand why some on either side may not be entirely satisfied with it.

Were there folks from the PR industry who wanted to put more of the blame on Wikipedia’s processes (edit request timeliness, outdated financial data, etc.)?

Well, as a matter of fact I find fault with some of Wikipedia's processes. I love Wikipedia, but no one in their right mind would say everything works well all of the time, and I think this is especially true on company articles. I am proof that the Bright Line can work, but whether it works well is a matter for reasonable debate. Certainly responses are not always timely, articles fall out-of-date regularly, and it's frustrating that following the Bright Line means refraining from even ostensibly uncontroversial changes. It requires a lot of patience and, to borrow a phrase from Pema Chödrön, one must be comfortable with uncertainty.

If Wikipedia was easy for outsiders to work with, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That said, PR folks at the Donovan House meeting were also well-aware that a good number of their industry colleagues are not as sophisticated about Wikipedia as they are, and I think we all expect there to be more controversies in the future. The difference is now we have a framework for helping them get it right, and the statement explicitly notes that it's our goal to communicate this to others.

'''Are PR companies expecting something in return for this gesture? What is it that the PR industry wants?'''

We are careful not to ask for anything specifically of the Wikipedia community in the statement, and readers should take note that it says the PR industry is open to a renewed dialogue, not that there is an expectation Wikipedia must reciprocate. Of course, we're hopeful that a number of volunteers will. And following the statement, we're planning for additional projects that participating agencies can do to continue educating themselves and their colleagues on Wikipedia, to develop formal processes for handling client requests, things of that sort. I expect there will be Wikipedians who are interested to help but, as with anything in this community, it will be self-selecting, and contributors will have differing views about what's best.

'''How did you come up with the idea of an in-person meeting? What was it like getting so many companies to the table, and then to agree to something in writing?'''

Truth be told, the idea was suggested to me by a colleague, Rhiannon Ruff (User:16912 Rhiannon). As I explained above, it was frustrating to see that, following the venerable journalistic principle of "if it bleeds, it leads", most discussions about Wikipedia and paid contributors focused on the bad actors. So the Donovan House meeting was a necessary prelude to creating this multi-agency statement, which itself is only the first public step in this process.

The experience of doing so was certainly interesting; when I started out, I had no idea if I would find enough interested participants, but I soon realized that this was a topic that many PR agencies were interested in—after all, it's an issue they've struggled with for a long time. We had people fly in from Chicago, Kentucky, and as far away as London. At that point, I had no idea how difficult it would be to find agreement on wording for a statement. It did take us a few months, and we went through about seven or eight drafts, but eventually we found a version that had wide support, and I'm very happy with how it's turned out.

'''Who are these firms and what kind of influence do they wield in the PR industry? Are you missing any major players?'''

At present we have five of the top 10 global agencies according to The Holmes Report, a PR industry trade publication, and all but one of the top 10 agencies based in the United States. We also have one representative of the major holding companies, as well. These agencies represent more than a billion dollars in fees annually, are some of the largest and best-known agencies in the world, and we have a handful of mid-sized agencies, too. Our goal here is to create a new industry standard for best practices that agencies large and small will follow. So yes, we are missing a number of firms we'd like to have join, although we've begun correspondence with several of them, and we want to bring in agencies serving English-speaking communities around the world.

At a time when the community (and the WMF) has taken an ever-stronger stand against paid advocacy do you think the Wikipedia community will take the Statement as a sign that it’s time to collaborate, or rather that it’s ‘winning’ and shouldn’t relent in the slightest?

First, I see no reason why this can't be "win-win". Wikipedia is not a zero-sum game. Second, I think the community and WMF should ask themselves what "winning" looks like. If it means driving PR people off Wikipedia entirely, that's not at all realistic. Neither Wikipedia nor PR is going away, and Wikipedia is simply too important in shaping public perceptions to be left alone entirely.

However, if WMF and the community want to reduce the number of paid editors violating official rules and community norms, it's important that there be a path available to those who want to do the right thing. And of course that does exist now, but it's not very easy to work through, and not very efficient even if you know the right way to go about things. To some extent, that's simply how Wikipedia works, and educating professional communicators about this has been a longstanding project of mine. But there is room for improvement, and I hope this is the beginning of a process that gets us there.

'''You are paid to provide guidance to companies when they want to engage with Wikipedia. What has been your role in that? Did the experience somehow lead to this meeting?'''

Definitely, my experiences over the past few years—both positive and negative—have greatly influenced this initiative. Most interesting to me is how far this conversation has come. Back in 2008 I was still unsure how well professional services around Wikipedia would be received. After all, I was very familiar with Wikipedia's strong volunteer ethos and allergic reaction to POV edits or suggestions. I still remember apprehensively watching the long debate in summer 2009 about whether to have a policy or guideline that banned paid editing. Once that failed, I realized that while paid contributors had to be very mindful of their place, there was always going to be a place for us on Wikipedia.

Likewise, Jimmy Wales's Bright Line declaration in 2012 effectively carved out a safe zone: it made clear not just that "paid advocates" should stay out of mainspace, but Talk page involvement was explicitly approved. I found that it was indeed possible to represent clients and be successful by appealing to Wikipedia editors' goals of creating a better, more accurate, well-rounded encyclopedia. Meanwhile, Wikipedia itself has come a long way: there are more professionals involved with Wikipedia than ever before. So I think Wikipedia is in a place where this conversation is much more possible than it was even a few years ago.

You’ve mentioned to me that the most important part of what you tell clients is basically, “No, Wikipedia doesn’t work like that.” Can you give me some examples and your philosophy about educating clients?

You name it and clients have asked for things they can't have. And they're oftentimes things that seem entirely reasonable to them. "Verifiability, not truth" is a constant pain point. Oftentimes it's not clear how much information about various controversies should be included in articles, and that becomes a topic for discussion first with the client and then on the Talk page. This is especially a challenge on technical articles, on financial topics, and also regarding lawsuits. We have to do our due diligence in researching the topic, come to our own conclusions, and then find a way to satisfy editors and clients alike.

There was also a point in time where we would have to explain to clients why we disclosed our client connections on Wikipedia, but that really hasn't been an issue in recent years—there's certainly a better awareness of how Wikipedia works than in the past, and nearly all of our projects come in through word-of-mouth, so they come to us with some understanding of what working with us means.

'''Do you stand to personally or financially benefit from the Statement and its development? It strikes me that you have positioned yourself strategically as an intermediary between companies and Wikipedia...'''

I think that really could go either way. No doubt, I'll gain some additional exposure as a "thought leader" and expert in this topic, but that's not a new thing. On the other hand, if the long-term effect of this project is to make Wikipedia safer for PR folks, then there will be more consultants who do this. I am taking the view that this is a worthy effort which should make Wikipedia better in the long run, and I'll "do well by doing good" as the saying goes.

'''Even if the statement is sincere, and endorsed by the top management, how does it actually get implemented and executed? What teeth does it have to actually make an impact (e.g. at the employee level)?'''

At the WikiConference USA panel last week, Michael Bassik and one of the Wikipedians attending agreed that just because Michael knows the right thing to do, at an agency of 2500 people, it's those in regional offices and lower on the org chart who are more likely to get it wrong. It's a challenge to communicate best practices through an entire agency, particularly on a topic relatively niche as Wikipedia. But it's important that they're now making an effort to do so.

Meanwhile, the statement includes a bullet point stating that, where breaches of Wikipedia rules may occur—and I think it's almost a certainty that someone at a participating agency will screw up in the future—then these companies pledge to take appropriate action, consistent with their HR policies, as they would with any other breach of Internet ethics. At the agency I previously worked for, I saw colleagues get themselves fired for making trouble on Twitter, and I will not be surprised if we see the same thing here.

'''There has been some talk on mailing lists of a hypothetical third-party organization that could field requests and complaints from parties with a COI. Is that idea on your mind? How would it work, who would fund it?'''

It's a bit pie-in-the-sky at the moment, but it's definitely an intriguing concept, and I think it could be one possible long-term solution to the problems that Wikipedia and PR people both face now. For PR practitioners, it can feel like it takes unreasonably long for volunteer editors to review and make changes. For Wikipedia editors, the incoming requests can sometimes be overwhelming, and there's a persistent backlog in the "request edit" queue not unlike the one at Articles for Creation.

So if there was a way to create an ombudsperson type of role for one or more people to review suggestions (from companies or PR agencies or anyone) and make a fair judgment on what should be done, and it's possible to fund this position without creating another potential COI—a significant logistical challenge, I acknowledge—I think that's where we want to be. We may not be there yet, but I'm optimistic about the future.

'''So, how does the Statement go forward? Does it spark a conversation? Are there next steps? What is to make it actually amount to something useful?'''

Am I ever interested to find out! By the time this runs, I expect I'll have some indication of how it's received by the community, and what the news coverage we get says about it. I would say that neither myself nor my fellow agency partners nor even the Wikipedians who joined us can be certain of what may develop out of this, but I think there is a big opportunity here. I hope it leads to more agencies making reasonable requests of Wikipedia, and that the community responds and puts more resources toward answering these kinds of requests.

We nearly had this in 2012 with the creation of WikiProject Cooperation, but it lost momentum after a decent start. Meanwhile, on the agency side we have a number of ideas about how to get the word out, from recruiting new agencies and organizations to join us, talking with university textbook publishers, and creating internal Wikipedia task forces at each agency to offer good advice. I think we're closer to the beginning than the end at this point, but I'm very pleased that we've made it this far already.